Louis, Your definition of "state terrorism" means that any U.S. terrorism against native Americans is still "state terrorism", simply because they are not in the U.S.?
I can work with that. But then offer a phrase to describe the possibility of terrorism within the United States, under the auspices of the U.S. government or fractions hereof. Or doesn't that ever happen and thus not worthy of a phrase? Paul Z. *************************************************************** THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier, 2006 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm *************************************************************** On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Louis Proyect wrote: > >But 9-11-2001 simply could not be "state terrorism"? Because the Bush > >adminstration has convinced you of the accuracy of its rendition of that > >history? > > > >Paul Z. > > State terrorism means terrorizing other nations. It is a means of achieving > a political goal. In Nicaragua state terror helped to oust the Sandinistas > by making the cost of supporting the revolutionary project too painful to > endure. What in the world does this have to do with flying planes into the > Pentagon and the WTC? > > -- > > www.marxmail.org > > >
